Regarding ‘Life’ and ‘Liberty’
Re “ ‘Life,’ ” editorial, Dec. 12
The Times proclaims that effectively applied life sentences, along with lack of evidence of the deterrent effect of capital punishment, make “clear” that such punishment “does not fall within the scope of reasonable state use of force.”
The operative word here is “reasonable.” Most citizens believe capital punishment means just that: punishment. Most citizens believe the punishment should fit the crime -- that the most severe crimes warrant the most severe punishment and that the reasonable punishment for certain crimes is capital. Only when the moral framework of our society that defines reasonable punishment undergoes a seismic shift will it be “clear” that the state is misapplying its force in exacting capital punishment.
Louis Nevell
Los Angeles
--
The death penalty is a barbaric carry-over from the past. When the U.S. patterns its punishments like those in China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, we tend to be seen as one of the less civilized countries in the world.
There is also the issue of fairness. The rich can afford the finest lawyers and rarely face execution, while the poor are usually given court-appointed lawyers who have neither the time nor the money to adequately prepare their clients’ cases.
It is also more costly to put people to death with years of appeals rather than giving them life without parole.
If we want to strive for a more fair and equitable justice system, we need to seriously consider abandoning the death penalty.
Dorothy Mark
Monrovia
--
Re “ ‘Liberty,’ ” editorial, Dec. 14
Your editorial does not go far enough. Part of the reason citizens and Congress have acceded to the unprecedented power grab by the Bush administration is that they have bought into the notion that the U.S. faces a “stateless philosophy” that has drawn it into a “conflict without end.”
I submit that the administration’s war on terrorism isn’t a war at all, and that the best way to reduce the level of terrorism is by altering foreign policy.
The plain truth is that current administration policy provokes terrorism. If its policies were based on respect for the right to self-determination, true freedom of religion and human rights and liberties in general, there would be far less enmity directed toward the United States.
Instead, the administration has arrogantly pursued “preventive war,” “regime change,” torture, imprisonment without due process and other policies that make the U.S. appear to be an overgrown, immature bully. And no one likes a bully.
Once it refashions its foreign policy in such a way as to demonstrate respect for the rest of the world, (and less of a sense of entitlement to the other countries’ resources), the threat of terrorism will fall dramatically.
J.G. Berinstein
Northridge
--
Never have I seen a more wrong-headed editorial. What Americans need and want -- and are willing to give up a measure of liberty for -- is a president who will protect this country from terrorism at the hands of the most dangerous, fanatical and well-concealed enemies we have ever been forced to deal with, an enemy that is aided and abetted by the left in our own country.
Arthur Hansl
Santa Monica